As it happens, I'd be content to cast an actor who can pass for younger (in Begins Bale was 31 playing Bruce Wayne at varied ages between his teens and 30), but I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision - bearing in mind that that's an age where many athletes and sportspeople are viewed as having their best days behind them.

Click to expand...

That comparison really makes very little sense. Sports and acting are two completely different things. The requirement for an actor is to act, and secondary, to look the part (which makeup and camerawork can help a lot with), rather than, say, to run really fast across the court to catch the ball coming from the other side of the net.

Click to expand...

Thank you for missing the point entirely.

As Admiral Young said, Batman would have to have the power, fitness and stamina of an athlete. He doesn't have superpowers to fall back on, just his fitness. And athletes tend to peak in their late 20s/ early 30s, which is why I'm saying that it would make sense for the actor playing him to be in that age group. I said that if, as in Batman Begins, Batman was starting out aged 30, it might not make an awful lot of sense - he'd have missed his peak years of fitness.

Also, I never actually said that the actor playing Batman had to be in his 20s, I merely defended Dark Gilligan when he expressed the viewpoint that the actor playing the lead should be in his 20s. I didn't say I agreed with him entirely. I in fact said that having an actor who was in his 30s could pass for being in his 20s would suffice.

So maybe the next time before you quote me and throw in a rolleyes, you'd actually try to read and understand what I said!

Click to expand...

Thank you for missing the point entirely!

Guess what? Actors don't have to be the exact same age as the characters they're playing. All that matters is that look like that age, more or less. Lots of people look 10 years younger than they are. (and I should know, since people always think I'm 10-14 years younger than I am)... and even more people can look 10 years younger with good makeup and lightning.

When I watched The Amazing Spider-man, I never thought "Well that makes no sense, this guy looks like he's almost 30". Why? Because Andrew Garfield doesn't look almost 30... even though he is. And a difference between how a teenager and an adult looks usually bigger than that between a 20-something and a 30-something. How many people here think that Bale looked too old to be Bruce Wayne/Batman, and that really ruined the trilogy for them, really? It's not like he's a 50-year old actor playing a 25-year old, for crying out loud.

Demotion I don't think was comparing actors and athletes, I think he was comparing Bruce Wayne and athletes. Bruce has often been described as being an Olympic level athlete. I think Demotion was arguing this is why it would be logical to use a younger actor.

Click to expand...

Even going by the "top athletes" standards, Batman should be able to do his thing just as well at least till his late 30s/around 40. If great basketball players can still be at the top of the game at that age, it's pretty silly to argue that Batman can't go around at night and beat up people. In fact, since, unlike the Olympic athletes, he's got his super-fast cars and other super-technology, he can continue to be at the top of his game for much longer than most athletes.

That comparison really makes very little sense. Sports and acting are two completely different things. The requirement for an actor is to act, and secondary, to look the part (which makeup and camerawork can help a lot with), rather than, say, to run really fast across the court to catch the ball coming from the other side of the net.

Click to expand...

Thank you for missing the point entirely.

As Admiral Young said, Batman would have to have the power, fitness and stamina of an athlete. He doesn't have superpowers to fall back on, just his fitness. And athletes tend to peak in their late 20s/ early 30s, which is why I'm saying that it would make sense for the actor playing him to be in that age group. I said that if, as in Batman Begins, Batman was starting out aged 30, it might not make an awful lot of sense - he'd have missed his peak years of fitness.

Also, I never actually said that the actor playing Batman had to be in his 20s, I merely defended Dark Gilligan when he expressed the viewpoint that the actor playing the lead should be in his 20s. I didn't say I agreed with him entirely. I in fact said that having an actor who was in his 30s could pass for being in his 20s would suffice.

So maybe the next time before you quote me and throw in a rolleyes, you'd actually try to read and understand what I said!

Click to expand...

Thank you for missing the point entirely!

Guess what? Actors don't have to be the exact same age as the characters they're playing. All that matters is that look like that age, more or less. Lots of people look 10 years younger than they are. (and I should know, since people always think I'm 10-14 years younger than I am)... and even more people can look 10 years younger with good makeup and lightning.

When I watched The Amazing Spider-man, I never thought "Well that makes no sense, this guy looks like he's almost 30". Why? Because Andrew Garfield doesn't look almost 30... even though he is. And a difference between how a teenager and an adult looks usually bigger than that between a 20-something and a 30-something. How many people here think that Bale looked too old to be Bruce Wayne/Batman, and that really ruined the trilogy for them, really? It's not like he's a 50-year old actor playing a 25-year old, for crying out loud.

Demotion I don't think was comparing actors and athletes, I think he was comparing Bruce Wayne and athletes. Bruce has often been described as being an Olympic level athlete. I think Demotion was arguing this is why it would be logical to use a younger actor.

Click to expand...

Even going by the "top athletes" standards, Batman should be able to do his thing just as well at least till his late 30s/around 40. If great basketball players can still be at the top of the game at that age, it's pretty silly to argue that Batman can't go around at night and beat up people. In fact, since, unlike the Olympic athletes, he's got his super-fast cars and other super-technology, he can continue to be at the top of his game for much longer than most athletes.

Click to expand...

Seriously, did you even read any of what I wrote?

I'm now saying, for the third time, that there's an argument in favour of casting an actor in his 20s to play Batman at the start of his career.

Nowhere have I said that Batman has to be played by an actor in his 20s. Nowhere have I said that Batman can't continue into his 30s. I specifically said that an actor in his 30s who would pass for his 20s would suffice. You seem to be intent on rebutting points that I've never actually made!!!!!!!

I merely observed that if Batman started off his career aged 30 as in Begins - a movie I love and starring the actor I wanted to play Batman since I saw him in American Psycho some years earlier - he would have missed his peak years of fitness. I didn't say that he couldn't do it in his 30s.

Hell, I'm 40 and I'm as fit as I was 10 years ago and I frequently get mistaken for younger (ask Admiral Young or Jackson Archer, they're friends of mine on Facebook and have seen my pics) but I'm not as fit as I would have been in my 20s, had I exercised as much then as I do now.

So I'm saying that there is some sense in having a 20something actor play a rookie Batman - not that it's compulsory.

With Batman do we even need origin flashbacks? I don't think we do. Unless there is some drastic departure there is little reason to. Batman's origin the most well known and simplest to understand. Rich guy's parents were killed in front of him as a kid. So he dresses as a Bat to scare and fight criminals.

I'm now saying, for the third time, that there's an argument in favour of casting an actor in his 20s to play Batman at the start of his career.

Nowhere have I said that Batman has to be played by an actor in his 20s. Nowhere have I said that Batman can't continue into his 30s. I specifically said that an actor in his 30s who would pass for his 20s would suffice. You seem to be intent on rebutting points that I've never actually made!!!!!!!

I merely observed that if Batman started off his career aged 30 as in Begins - a movie I love and starring the actor I wanted to play Batman since I saw him in American Psycho some years earlier - he would have missed his peak years of fitness. I didn't say that he couldn't do it in his 30s.

Hell, I'm 40 and I'm as fit as I was 10 years ago and I frequently get mistaken for younger (ask Admiral Young or Jackson Archer, they're friends of mine on Facebook and have seen my pics) but I'm not as fit as I would have been in my 20s, had I exercised as much then as I do now.

So I'm saying that there is some sense in having a 20something actor play a rookie Batman - not that it's compulsory.

Other people seem to understand what I'm saying, why don't you?

Click to expand...

Because I've actually followed the discussion, which started by a poster saying that a Batman actor should be under 30, and I've read what you wrote, which was, quote:

"...I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision"

Yep, you've implied that it's wrong to cast someone not under 30 as Batman.

Again "...I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision" - this refers to the character. Not the actor. There's such a thing as context and the rest of my post was clearly talking about the character.

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne was aged 30 when he returned to Gotham and started his career as Batman. Christian Bale was aged 31. Did you hear me complain that he wasn't the same age as the character? Can you show me a link to that or a quote? No. Cos I didn't say it!!!!

In relation to the other poster, it is possible to see some merit in someone else's argument without agreeing in its entirety. I don't see things in simple black or white. Clearly nuance and subtlety are concepts beyond you.

How many times do I have to agree that an actor over 30 can play a character under 30? Is that too complicated a notion for you to follow?

Oh, now we're starting with the absurd insults, I love this part. No, I'm obviously speaking Marsian, can't you tell?

You know, it would have been much simpler if you just clarified straight away that you meant only the character, not the actor, instead of jumping straight to ranting and insults? Despite the whole discussion starting with a poster's statement about the actor... not the character, nobody mentioned that before you, so you can see how someone may get confused thinking that you were referring to the actor when you said you reluctantly agreed with the previous poster, who stated that the actor had to be under 30, not the character. Maybe in your advance knowledge of English (probably English from the future) it makes sense to say you're agree with something nobody has mentioned before you.

Here's a hint: discussions generally tend to go better when you don't immediately start attacking the other person and writing things like "Thank you for completely misreading everything I said!", "Did you even read what I wrote" etc. And here's another hint: if someone has misunderstood you, it may actually be - shock, horror! - because you haven't explained yourself well. You may try to do it better. Or is that too complicated for you? I know insults are much easier.

'He' is you. is that also too complicated for you?

Click to expand...

Yes, it is really too complicated to imagine why you would assume that I've had a sex change operation since joining TrekBBS and must have forgotten to update my details.

As it happens, I'd be content to cast an actor who can pass for younger (in Begins Bale was 31 playing Bruce Wayne at varied ages between his teens and 30), but I'd have to reluctantly agree that having a Batman aged 30 at the start of his career was perhaps a questionable decision - bearing in mind that that's an age where many athletes and sportspeople are viewed as having their best days behind them.

Click to expand...

I firstly talked about the actor then I talked about a Batman at the start of his career. First the actor, then the character.

I don't see why it's so difficult to hold two different concepts in your mind at the same time. It should have been very clear that I was saying I had no problem with the age of the actor but could see merit in having a younger character.

Like I say, Admiral Young and JD got the point straight away and I've repeated it ad nauseum, so I don't know why I'm having to make it again.

If you hadn't been so quick to throw in a rolleyes, I might not have retorted with the 'English' wisecrack. And I didn't read your profile, so I didn't know you were female. I was more interested in reading the actual posts.

Demotion has stated that he reluctantly agreed with Dark Gilligan's take and defended his right to have that opinion (of course which is correct) we both disagreed on that take though DevilEyes, and we've established he was talking about Batman the character in comparison to athletes, not athletes and actors. I'm not sure how this has evolved into an argument.

I was thinking today. People keep saying Jon Hamm is too old to play Batman. He's younger than Daniel Craig and younger than Robert Downey Jr. If they can play, respectively, Bond and Stark, I can't think of any valid reason not to get Hamm, especially if they're not doing a "Year One" style story.